Even before President Bush called for the invasion in Iraq, Obama said Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to America. He said an invasion into Iraq would lead to occupation of Iraq without knowing when it would end, an unknown cost of money and lives, and consequences we could not foresee.
He was right. Four years later, we are still there. We don’t know when we will leave, but we can tell it won’t be anytime soon.
He was right. Four years later, we have paid billions of dollars for the mess we have created. We have paid with thousands of lives and sadly still counting, for the mess we have created.
He was right. Four years later, Iraq is more of a mess than ever before. We were supposed to be welcomed with open arms, but now most Iraqis feel there is justification to attack and murder Americans on their soil.
Obama would like a troop reduction in Iraq with a timeframe for a phased withdrawal. He would like the Iraqi government to take control and form a political solution. He would like the United States to fix Iraq and provide services that are essential to Iraqis’ well-being. He would like the neighboring nations to have a part in the stability of the Iraqi nation.
He is right. We need to remove our troops from the dangers that they face; the danger of a plan that is not going to work; the danger of a plan that puts troops in harms way for a fleeting reason. We need a gradual withdrawal and as we leave, Iraqis must take our posts. They must take control of their country; to be autonomous from outside occupation.
He is right. We need to construct quality training stations and police stations for the Iraqis to work. We cannot have the corruption that has been present amongst some of the hired contractors, with poor workmanship resulting in more money for them to fix what they have done.
He is right. We need other nations to aid their Iraqi neighbors. It is not in their best interest for an unstable nation in their region. It is not in their best interest for there to be warring factions in a neighbor. Stability promotes prosperity, which is the ultimate goal in Iraq and we cannot do this alone.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You have a lot of good points, but I have to question the validity of the statement that Obama was right when he said Saddam wasn't an imminent threat to American. He may have been right, but we cannot say that with certainty as we did not give Saddam a chance to become a threat. He may or may not have been a threat to America and we will never know the answer.
~Jax
"Everyone has the right to their own opinion, I just prefer mine."
I understand what you are trying to say, but I have a question. You say he wasn't a threat because we didn't give him time to be a threat. Britain is not currently a threat... do we invade Britain on the chance that they will become a threat in the future? Justifying removing Saddam because he might eventually become a threat just doesn't make much sense to me. With that same logic, we could justify the invasion of nearly every country in the world.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
I just felt it was jumping to conclusions to say that Obama was right about Saddam because events have transpired that make this analysis impossible. Obviously we should not invade countries simply because they may, one day be problem.
~Jax
"Everyone has the right to their own opinion, I just prefer mine."
I understand what you were trying to say. I was just pointing out that the logic you gave for that argument was faulty and did your argument little good.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the warm rays of the sun fall upon your home."
Saddam wasn't a stupid or foolish man. He knew the United States could defeat him with ease, so why would he mess with a stronger nation? He wouldn't and he didn't. He'll oppress the Kurds without issue because they don't have the strength, but there would be no reason for him to attack the United States.
I completely agree. Saddam would have had too much to lose if he decided to mess with the U.S.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Cool article with some good points. I've never been a fan of Obama's, though, largely for ideological reasons; I think he is a thinly-veiled socialist posing as a so-called "moderate." At the very least, he is just plain ignorant of economics; and when the day is done, I really don't know what he thinks he stands for.
From what I have seen, his most opinionated stances have to do with the U.S. energy industry. He wants government to fund "renewable energy," etc. in the U.S. There are a lot of technical reasons why this is wrong, but Obama does not seem to care much about economics.
As far as the war in the Middle East goes, I think there is good reason for it. I do not agree with the "official" reasons for going to war--I would be content with the explanation that an economically powerful group of people wish harm against Western interests (I've written about this subject in one of my posts).
As for the 2008 election in general, I've got no high hopes. The only candidate that comes close to what I believe is Ron Paul, and he stands no chance of winning anything. As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats offer a road to hell, and the Republicans offer a more round-about way to get there.
I'm done with them all, frankly.
Obama can say all that stuff about fixing the problems in Iraq until his face turns blue, but it doens't mean a damn until he takes action. What is he doing? He is voting on non-binding resolutions to send to Bush that do absolutely nothing. So instead of praising him pointing out our mistakes and telling us what we should do lets get on him for not taking action.
http://www.progressiveu.org/203828-four-years-and-what-do-we-have-to-show-for-it
He can't do anything considering many things that need to get passed in the Senate need 60 votes for it to pass. With 49 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 2 Independents, there's not much that will get done in the Senate concerning the war. You can't criticize Obama for that.
I think any 'timeframe' would by its nature ignore the realities of the situation on the ground. I would support a withdrawal based on improvements in the situation as they occur.
The opposition needs to see that they cannot scare, or wait us out of Iraq. It would help some of the factions to remove their support from terrorists, and put it behind a more stable government if they knew that was the only way to get rid of us.
A fact is always better than an ideal